CHICAGO, IL —George W. Bush’s book Decision
Points is
interesting because he lets readers share the pros-and-cons of his
decisionmaking but shows the glitch in thinking that ruined the GOP
for a time—and may do so again. This is so-called “moderation” that
is supposed to neutralize liberal and media criticism. More of that
later.

The book is twofold —
gooey and Wilsonian — with one major exception.

The exception is “W’s” firm
support of pro-life values, including his courageous handling of the
embryonic stem cell issue. In what is probably the best chapter, he
goes into his laudable study to determine what to do. Not covered
in the book — which puzzles me — is probably his finest hours in support
of life, namely, his appointments of John Roberts as chief justice
and Sam Alito as an associate justice. He refers briefly to the
bad mistake of nominating Harriet Miers to be an associate justice;
after social conservatives raised hell at this nomination, she withdrew
herself from consideration.

Bush does not explain how he
mysteriously failed to understand that she was a lightweight with no
informed views on jurisprudence, even though her contributions to political
liberals should have tipped him off. In all, social conservatives can
pinch themselves that through happenstance they got two brilliant conservative
justices. Before he thought of Miers, Bush would surely have appointed
his favorite, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but Gonzales ran into
trouble when he submitted a list of U.S. attorneys who reportedly were
not sufficiently political in their prosecutions and he subsequently
resigned under fire.

Otherwise, running throughout
the book is that gawd-awful concept of “compassionate conservatism.” Three
examples.

One. Supporting “No Child
Left Behind,” the hideously expensive education excursion,
designed to woo soccer moms. Bush was suckered by Ted Kennedy, who
was willing to give more concessions to Idealist George such as vouchers
but wasn’t asked to because “W” was edified that
he was working with the blowsy old stentorian phony. A “compassionate
country club express” got him nothing but criticism from the
Left.

Two. The ill-conceived
multibillion-dollar prescription drug benefit allowed him to demonstrate “Republicans-are-also-liberal.” He
tried to show the media and voters that the GOP could be just as profligate
as the Democrats. Not surprisingly, liberals gave him no credit
— only criticism that he did not spend more.

Three. The nonsensical
Immigration bill supported by McCain which charted amnesty for illegals.
It didn’t make it and, further alienated millions of conservatives
to boot.

The book is not a chronological
review of the administration — only certain “decision points.” This
approach bypasses the need to refer to other mushy-moderate residues
of the “compassionate” country club — his signing
of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill; his signing of the anti-business
Sarbanes-Oxley bill that put the financial industry in irons; his failing
to veto any bills in his first term; and his adding 100,000 new federal
employees. In addition are the return of expensive farm subsidies that
had been ended by Reagan, and the pork barrel spending in cooperation
with the Republican Congress, which hit a record $29 billion, four
times higher than the 1994 level. Each one could be identified
as an attempt to buy favor with special interest groups via taxpayer
dollars — probably as result of the importuning of Karl Rove on a
willing country-club president.

In foreign affairs,
Bush wallowed in Wilsonianism. He went all wobbly about the
epidemic of AIDS in Africa where he had no business directing taxpayers’ largesse
to the cause resemblant of High Church Episcopalian philanthropy. A
president has to be guided by his head in fiscal prudence and not allow
himself to use government monies whenever he gets weepy. Fighting
AIDS should be the job of the churches and private sector foundations.

In fact, weepiness,
lumps in the throat, and tears run in rivulets all through the soggy
book. When a president commits troops to the battlefield, it should
be to protect the peace and liberty of the United States. Period. That
has got to be the only justification to be used for action in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Yet, we read that, although no weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) were found, nevertheless getting rid of Saddam Hussein may
have justified the war because he was a tyrant to his people and a
mass murderer. Wrong.

Saddam was a
tyrant all right — but that is not why a president sends American
youths to war. God knows there are now and always have been in power
tyrants abusive to their people. We have no business charging
in as Sir Galahad — a Dudley Do-Right type of international police
force. I once alienated a Jewish woman who was with me on public radio
by challenging her statement that the Holocaust enough was justification
for going to war with Hitler. “No ma’am,” I
said, “atrocious as it was. We went to World War II
because we were attacked by Japan, after which Hitler declared
war in solidarity — and it had nothing to do with the Jews. Nor
should we have gone in for the Jews.”

How awful, she
said.

“Not awful, ma’am,” I
replied. “A president has no right to send troops
to war to rectify injustice — else we would be engaged in wars perpetually.”

Nor do we have the right to go
to war to make other nations convert to “democratic principles.” None
at all. Too much of Bush’s book — far too much — makes
him look like a naïve Eagle Scout president. I hope but am not
sure that Eagle Scoutism did not propel us to Afghanistan and Iraq. If
this could be proved, I would be with the paleos. But I don’t
think it was.

What has convinced me
is not Bush or Cheney but Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis who
says that even though WMD weren’t found, Bush saved us further
terrorist attacks at home since it was the first time we shoved back
on Islamic terrorism. Because I believe Lewis is right, I applaud
Bush’s decisiveness.

But aside from the WMD issue
that fooled everybody, if we went in to dethrone Hussein because
he mass murderered Kurds (no matter how repugnant), or because Hussein
tried to assassinate Bush’s father who is an idol to “W,” the
decision to commit U.S. troops would have been unjustified and immoral
— and I’d be on the street-corners passing out leaflets. So…

The reason I ‘ve supported Iraq is that I agree with
Lewis. Even so, there is so much gooey sentimentality over the senior
Bush in the book — although intriguingly the assassination plan doesn’t
get mentioned — that I suspect without proof it may have been one
cause. But as I have no proof and do respect the fact that under
his tenure the homeland was spared after 9/11, I shall give him a good
mark for decisiveness in pushing back.

In brief, Bush, though gooey and sentimental,
is a firm Christian and patriot. I have no confidence
at all that under the Big Zero (Obama) we are being as adequately protected
from our enemies as we were under Bush. It is clear from O’s
many statements that he is neither Christian nor patriot, but a mysterious
third-world alien and a cipher endowed with Sidney Poitier drawing
room manners.

We can easily do better in 2012,
but we must not return to “compassionate conservatism” ala
country club moderation. To those who want to see Jeb Bush saying
he’s the best of the Bushes, I say he may be. Yet I, for one,
have had enough of Kennebunkport to last the rest of my lifetime.

Thomas F. Roeser is radio talk show host, writer, lecturer, teacher,
and former Vice President of The Quaker Oats Company of Chicago. He
was both a John F. Kennedy Fellow (Harvard University), and a Woodrow
Wilson International Fellow. Tom Roeser is
the author of the book, Father Mac: The Life
and Times of Ignatius D. McDermott, Co-Founder of Chicago's Famed Haymarket
Center (2002).
Long-active in Chicago politics, Mr. Roeser is Chairman of Catholic
Citizens of Illinois, a grassroots organization of Catholics.